| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
RIAA - 3 : Thomas-Rassert 0
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 11.14.10 |
->> This chick just won't quit... They're going to appeal again after going 0-3 against RIAA.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372230,00.asp
To get you up to speed, here are the bullet points:
-In 2005 it's discovered she was sharing 1,700 songs on Kazaa. She's taken to court and pleads innocence - that she's the victim. During the discovery phase it's found that she destroyed as much evidence as possible.
-First trial ends in 2007 and the jury finds her guilty and sets fines at $222,000. Judge throws it out though due to giving jury the wrong instructions. RIAA offers an extremely low settlement offer. T-R rejects it.
-Second trial ends last summer. Jury finds her guilty again and fine set at $1.92M. The same judge from the first trial reduces it to $54,000. RIAA tells the judge to get bent but offers a settlement for $25,000 and admission of guilty. T-R rejects it again.
-Third trial ends last week. Jury AGAIN finds her guilty, but lessens the fine to $1.5M. She flat out says she won't pay because:
""I can't afford to pay any amount. It's not a matter of won't, it's a matter of 'I can't,'" Thomas-Rasset said Thursday, according to the AP. "Any amount that I pay to them is money that I could use to feed my children. Any amount that I pay to them is money I could use to clothe my kids, and pay my mortgage so my kids have a place to sleep.""
Okay, that's a cute way to try to act like a victim (which she's done throughout the five year process) but the court system doesn't really care about criminals' families, they just care about the criminal.
Her attorneys in the past have even AGREED that she broke the law but she's contradicting them while under oath, which brings up another point; how long until her attorneys get sick of wracking up their "lost cases" tally and refuse to represent her? |
|
Rod Oracheski, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Wainwright | AB | Canada | Posted: 2:06 AM on 11.15.10 |
->> "Okay, that's a cute way to try to act like a victim (which she's done throughout the five year process) but the court system doesn't really care about criminals' families, they just care about the criminal."
That's not entirely true, as was seen in a recent case against a Morgan Stanley financial manager who struck a bicyclist and fled the scene. Prosecutors decided against pursuing felony charges against him because they would jeopardize his job.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/martin-erzinger-hit-run/story?id=12088074
He hit him and then drove away, stopping later to report the damage to his Mercedes, but not call someone about the cyclist he'd struck. Touching story. |
|
Robert Longhitano, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 8:14 AM on 11.15.10 |
| ->> She should of taken the 25G offer. I'm sure they would made a payment plan that she could live with. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 11:27 AM on 11.15.10 |
| ->> The woman is an idiot, yes. But she is also a scapegoat that RIAA wants to hold up as an example to other infringers. Doesn't make what she did right, and in fact this long, drawn-out process is probably worth far more in publicity to RIAA than the $25,000 or even the $1.9 million. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 1:02 PM on 11.15.10 |
->> I know my opinion won't be popular, but there has to be a common sense when you hand down a 1 million dollar judgment to someone who will never be able to pay it.
The RIAA are a bunch of crooks period. The settlement was to high. At most she should be charged triple the amount it costs to purchase them online, plus attorney fees. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:07 PM on 11.15.10 |
->> Matt-
The court handed down the $1.92M judgement based on actual lost sales; the RIAA was willing to settle for $5k, which is way way less than their losses. The court is trying to whack her for destroying evidence. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 2:16 PM on 11.15.10 |
->> The 5K is reasonable, I did not see that.
The other issue I have is with the way RIAA is prosecuting these individuals. How they track, and "prove" is suspect at times.
Again JMHO. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 4:34 PM on 11.15.10 |
| ->> Why doesn't she just declare bankruptcy and walk away? Isn't this a civil case? |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 5:47 PM on 11.15.10 |
->> That lawyer has to be doing this pro-bono (did I get that right?) and yes it is a civil case I believe.
In the end she will have to declare bankruptcy. I think that is what she has been planning to do from the beginning anyways. At this point what does it matter to her.
1 dollar to 10 million she doesn't have the money |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 6:43 PM on 11.15.10 |
->> $3-5K used to be the standard policy. When the RIAA started the offensive in August '03 they started suing all the people with "excessive" amounts of copyrighted uploadable content. After they filed suit they gave everyone a sliding scale settlement option. I don't know how many people accepted, but when you are looking at a $10-15K retainer fee for an IP attorney, I'd imagine most people happily request a payment plan.
In the correlative, there was a group of anti-RIAA attorney providing pro bono services to the P2P violators. Someone who's already financially insolvent and can also receive free legal services is the perfect candidate to create standing for two groups of attorneys yearning for an IP showdown... |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:52 PM on 11.15.10 |
->> Incorrect, it's in federal court.
Matthew- I agree to an extent. As the saying goes, you can't get blood from a turnip, but as a plaintiff it's still fine to cut them up and run them through the grinder each time just to make sure, but you need the judgement in order to set a precedent, as well as establish leverage for any offer to settle.
However, I wouldn't call the RIAA a bunch of crooks. If anything we owe them a debt for allowing us to ride on their coat tails. What they're doing effects us as photographers in the long run.
John- Oddly enough, Thomas-Rassert has either a pro bono team and/or a defense fund. If you notice in the last graph, it's her attorney that states this but they apparently aren't sure. To boot, even her attorneys know she's guilty but she's denying it under oath. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:11 AM on 11.16.10 |
->> Thomas -
What are you saying is incorrect? The case may be in federal court, but she is not being prosecuted in a criminal action - she got sued by the record labels. So it's a civil judgement - can't that be discharged in bankruptcy? |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 1:06 PM on 11.16.10 |
->> You know, if I didn't know any better I'd swear you edited your post. Strike that part of my response. As for the bankruptcy, that would probably cost her more over her lifetime (jacked interest rates et al) than the original $5000 and $25,000 settlement offers.
I'm wondering when the point will come for RIAA that they say "okay fine, you don't want to settle for our micro miniscule offers and you're going to appeal for a third time, we'll go the other route and seek incarceration." |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:16 PM on 11.16.10 |
| ->> If they can get a judgement recorded and get liens and garnishments attached her credit will be toast AND she will have no money. Yes the $5,000 will look good at that point whether she declares bankruptcy or no. Especially if they can get the courts to start finding her in contempt for failure to pay. There has to be a bankroll on the backside of this who has more to gain than what they may have agreed go cover if she loses.....again. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 7:32 PM on 11.16.10 |
| ->> Wow, so I can claim poverty and still steal 1,700 of Mr. Witte's images and share them with the world so he looses money? So what legal defense fund is footing the bill for this moron? "Follow the money" |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 7:54 AM on 11.18.10 |
->> Can she really be this stupid?
Years ago, I would have said "no". Now, I know better.
And Thomas is exactly correct. We get to ride RIAA's coat tails on this one.
But it's hard to believe this woman is THAT stupid. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:22 AM on 11.18.10 |
->> Michael -
I'm really thinking that she's just a puppet now. Someone out there with a lot to gain from any erosion of the courts view on this issue is paying the freight as long as she does what they say. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:33 PM on 11.18.10 |
->> Mark,
Caught your previous comment.
Maybe. But she's still stupid if she said yes to it. Unless she plans on extorting money from them to keep their names out of the papers when it's over. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 4:03 PM on 11.18.10 |
| ->> Or she is already getting financial support..... |
|
Jeff Barrie, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 8:55 PM on 11.18.10 |
->> Yes Thomas your right, bankruptcy may cost her more in the long run than the deal she has been offered. However, in federal court where this kind of case would be tried as a civil matter, the judge issues the judgement and then if they don't pay, liens, garnisments, US. Marshals with seizure orders are all possible.
While I am not familiar with this case,I have some experience in this field working for ASCAP. In federal court you file based upon the infringment/s and at the judges discrestion based upon evidence, willingness to infringe, knowledge of committing the infringment the judgements are set in a range and if memory serves me correct it's like $1200-$120,000 per infringment. The plaintiff can sue for lack of payment on the judgement. There is also a new industry in the last 25 years or so that will pay you a percentage of your judgement and then be assigned the rights to collect. Them boys play some hard ball and would probably take your glass eye if they thought they could sell it to collect on the judgement.
If anyone on this board is against RIAA just imagine what your stance on this would be if it was photos downloaded instead of music. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|